Detecting Cell Surface Markers

Abstract

In one aspect, the present invention provides a method for detecting an expression level of a cell surface marker in a sample, comprising staining the sample with a reagent that labels the cell surface marker; obtaining an image of the stained sample; and determining a value for continuity of cell surface staining in the image, wherein the value is indicative of the expression level.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION[0001]The present invention relates to the field of detection and quantitation of cell surface markers, for instance in the automated analysis of stained tissue samples for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION[0002]Targeted therapeutics or personalised medicine regimes are driving a new era of integrated diagnostics and therapeutics, particularly in the oncology domain. Many anti-cancer antibodies have been approved in association with companion tests for biomarker expression to identify the most responsive patients, ensuring that accurate evaluation of biomarker status has become particularly acute in the clinical laboratory.[0003]The role that biomarkers can play is exemplified by HER-2: a prognostic, predictive and therapy selection factor for patients with breast cancer. Amplification of the HER-2 gene or over-expression of its protein product in cell membranes is seen in 10-30% of invasive breast cancer and is associated with ...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

[0022]Embodiments of the present invention typically employ a step of determining a value for continuity of cell surface staining It has been surprisingly found that this continuity value is particularly useful in the analysis of images of tissue samples, since it can be used to accurately quantitate a cell surface marker in the sample.

Problems solved by technology

FISH is considered the gold-standard method of evaluation affording an objective and quantitative scoring system; however this technique suffers from fading fluorochromes and thus poor long term stability, in addition to a requirement for specialised microscopic equipment which restricts its use in conventional laboratories.

However, although these methods have been determined to give comparable results to FISH, they are not yet widely utilised in diagnostic pathology.

Nonetheless, despite efforts to standardise assay protocol and interpretation, antibodies and methods vary across laboratories and IHC scoring remains an inherently subjective process to which only limited statistical confidence can be assigned due to inherent observer variability and the semi-quantitative nature of the data.

Even for the trained eye of a pathologist, accurate distinction between the nominal categories (0, 1+, 2+, 3+) is difficult and often arbitrary, and significant variation is introduced as a result of over-using the intermediate category during reviews.

Recently, high rates of discordance between IHC reviewed at high-volume HER-2 reference centres and low-volume regional laboratories has cast doubt on the reliability of results.

Despite the advances provided by automated image acquisition and analysis systems, it has been found that the results of automated image analysis of IHC-treated samples do not always correlate well with manual review or more accurate methods such as FISH.

Images